JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 04.01.2019 passed by the learned Sub Judge-IV, Rohtas at Sasaram in Title Suit No.880 of 2017 by which he has rejected the petition dated 17.08.2018 filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) by the plaintiffs-petitioners for analogous hearing of Title Suit No.53 of 2002 and Title Suit No. 880 of 2017 and directed that the proceeding of Title Suit No.880 of 2017 shall remain stayed till conclusion of the proceeding of Title Suit No.53 of 2002. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that while passing the impugned order, the trial court has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in it and stayed the hearing of Title Suit No.880 of 2017 till the disposal of Title Suit No.35 of 2002 though there is no prayer on behalf of any party to that effect nor any petition had been filed under Section 10 of the CPC. The trial court was not justified in rejecting the petition dated 17.08.2018 filed by the petitioners without considering the fact that if the said petition is allowed and both the suits are tried together, the defendants-respondents will not be prejudiced in any manner. He has further contended that the order passed by the court below is cryptic one and it does not disclose any reason for rejecting the aforesaid petition. He pleaded that Section 151 of the CPC enables the parties to have the proceeding of a pending suit conducted in a manner that is consistent with justice and equality and the trial court ought to have done justice between the parties while passing the order. Had the application of the petitioners filed under Section 151 of the CPC been allowed, the salutary purpose of consolidation of suits could have been achieved. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, I shall first consider the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the scope of Section 151 of the CPC. 5. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, I shall first consider the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the scope of Section 151 of the CPC. 5. Section 151 of the CPC provides that nothing in the CPC shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of the justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. The inherent powers of the court are to supplement and not to replace the remedies provided for in the CPC. While exercising the power under Section 151 of the CPC, the court is required to consider whether exercise of such power is expressly prohibited by any other provision of the court and if, there is such prohibition, then the court is required to consider whether such power should be exercised or not on the basis of the facts mentioned in the application. 6. The plaintiffs-petitioners had instituted Title Suit No.53 of 2002 for declaration of their title over schedule C property of the suit. The defendants-respondents have also filed Title No.53 of 2002 in which the plaintiffs of Title Suit No.880 of 2017 have been made defendants. It is the case of the petitioners before the trial court that parties to the Title Suit No.880 of 2017 are also parties to the Title Suit No.53 of 2002 and they are claiming their title in respective suits and the matters in issue are common in both the suits. Upon consideration of the record of both the suits, the court also opined that the issue of Title Suit No.53 of 2002 is directly and substantially in issue in Title Suit No.880 of 2017 also. 7. Admittedly, Title Suit No.53 of 2002 is a suit which was instituted prior in time. 8. Upon consideration of the record of both the suits, the court also opined that the issue of Title Suit No.53 of 2002 is directly and substantially in issue in Title Suit No.880 of 2017 also. 7. Admittedly, Title Suit No.53 of 2002 is a suit which was instituted prior in time. 8. Having reached to the conclusion that the matter in issue in Title Suit No.880 of 2017 is also directly and substantially the issue in Title Suit No.53 of 2002 between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title, the trial court formed an opinion that since Section 10 of the CPC is applicable to the proceedings of Title Suit No.880 of 2017 being subsequent in time, it stayed the proceeding of Title Suit No.880 of 2017 till the conclusion of the proceedings of Title Suit No.53 of 2002. 9. As far as the prayer of analogous proceeding of both the suits made by the petitioners under Section 151 of the CPC is concerned, the trial court was of the opinion that since there is express provision covering the matter in question, there was no need to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC. Even the petitioners have not pleaded that the matter in issue in Title Suit No.880 of 2017 is directly and substantially not in issue in Title Suit No.53 of 2002. 10. Under such circumstances, the view taken by the trial court can not be called as either erroneous or perverse. The same is also not without jurisdiction. It is true that in the interest of justice even if consolidation of suits has not been provided for under any of the provisions of the CPC, the same can be done in exercise of the powers under Section 151 of the CPC. However, the powers under Section 151 of the CPC can not be exercised in contravention of, or in conflict with, or upon ignoring express and specific provisions of the law. 11. Since Section 10 of the CPC is a specific provision of law and it provides for stay of suit. The rule of res sub-judice would prevent the Court from simultaneously adjudicating a parallel litigation filed for the same cause of action. 12. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this application. It is dismissed, accordingly.